Russian army as good as the US army????? - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

indeed - both nations each took 50% of OUR rocket scientists...

we prefer the term *recruited*.

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

indeed - both nations each took 50% of OUR rocket scientists...

plus we had the first working jet fighter and the first stealth bomber..

if only we had used all that for more peaceful purposes...

ours too

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

ours too

there were canadian nazis?

i did not know that.

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

indeed - both nations each took 50% of OUR rocket scientists...

plus we had the first working jet fighter and the first stealth bomber..

if only we had used all that for more peaceful purposes...

If Germany was able to mass produce the first jet fighter.... It would have changed everything.

Scott McD · 05-16-2013, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Oh Hi there!

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

If Germany was able to mass produce the first jet fighter.... It would have changed everything.

i'm going totally by memory here but didn't adolph put the kabash on the me262 for years?

MaDalton · 05-16-2013, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm going totally by memory here but didn't adolph put the kabash on the me262 for years?

he screwed it up by demanding to turn it into a bomber instead.

payload too small, engines not powerful enough to carry the load and an otherwise excellent plane wasted on the wrong purpose

qwe · 05-16-2013, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

it's no different at all, afghansitan is a shithole cesspool that we fell into, just like y'all did and many others before that.

we too lost in afghanistan.

again, i've said it before here, i'm very anti-war. i happen to know a bit of history of it and also like history so i share that but i do not advocate war at all.

"lost" is a wrong word to use... nobody lost in Afghanistan, not Russians, not Americans... both came there, stayed there, controlled territory, got tired of wasting money and dealing with poor brain washed lunatics (which don't care about their own life and blow themselves up) and left... if let's say USA was in a war with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan pushed back, came and destroyed most major cities inside America and America would sign it gives up than THAT'S what I call LOST... how can you loose if your actual country inside didn't suffer, but other country got bombed to stone age ?

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

he screwed it up by demanding to turn it into a bomber instead.

payload too small, engines not powerful enough to carry the load and an otherwise excellent plane wasted on the wrong purpose

oh right right right, thanks !

haha, he was such a tard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwe

"lost" is a wrong word to use...

lost is the perfect word to use.

crockett · 05-16-2013, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

If Germany was able to mass produce the first jet fighter.... It would have changed everything.

Germany could have mass produced it. However Hitler was more worried about a jet powered bomber, by the time they refocused on the fighter it was too little too late. Had they focused on the fighter, the allied bombing raids might not have been so effective.

rogueteens · 05-16-2013, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

indeed - both nations each took 50% of OUR rocket scientists...

plus we had the first working jet fighter and the first stealth bomber..

if only we had used all that for more peaceful purposes...

oh, are you British? I thought you was American. the first operational jet fighter was the UK's Gloster Meteor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The British experimental Gloster E.28/39 first took to the air on May 15, 1941, powered by Sir Frank Whittle's turbojet.[5] After the United States was shown the British work, it produced the Bell XP-59A with a version of the Whittle engine built by General Electric, which flew on October 1, 1942. The Meteor was the first production jet as it entered production a few months before the Me 262.

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Germany could have mass produced it. However Hitler was more worried about a jet powered bomber, by the time they refocused on the fighter it was too little too late. Had they focused on the fighter, the allied bombing raids might not have been so effective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

he screwed it up by demanding to turn it into a bomber instead.

payload too small, engines not powerful enough to carry the load and an otherwise excellent plane wasted on the wrong purpose

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i'm going totally by memory here but didn't adolph put the kabash on the me262 for years?

Yeah, Hilter didn't see the value in having a jet fighter... If I remember correctly, he started and stopped the program many times, and made so many changes to the program that it never really got off...

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwe

"lost" is a wrong word to use... nobody lost in Afghanistan, not Russians, not Americans... both came there, stayed there, controlled territory, got tired of wasting money and dealing with poor brain washed lunatics (which don't care about their own life and blow themselves up) and left... if let's say USA was in a war with Afghanistan, and Afghanistan pushed back, came and destroyed most major cities inside America and America would sign it gives up than THAT'S what I call LOST... how can you loose if your actual country inside didn't suffer, but other country got bombed to stone age ?

It depends on what you consider a victory. Winning a war used to mean "unconditional surrender". Germany and Japan come to mind here. Since then, the lines are less clear.

Iraq was a victory for the US. The US took control of the government, it's military, and the entire country.

You can argue that Afghanistan - for both the US and the Russians - was a victory. In both cases the military was defeated, the government replaced, and most of the country occupied. However, in countries such as Afghanistan (and Pakistan) the government isn't in control of the entire country. In Afghanistan, no matter what government is in control there will always be multiple armed groups trying to over throw them. But did Afghanistan ever attack Russia? Nope. Did Afghanistan ever invade the US? Nope. Not a clear victory for anyone, but I wouldn't really call it a defeat for Russia or the US. At a certain point fighting a war is not viable from a political standpoint.

wizzart · 05-16-2013, 09:52 AM

Yes Russian army is good as the US army, only in propaganda they are several years behind.

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 09:55 AM

rochard and i will have to disagree on the outcome of afghanistan but we do agree that in war there are the victors and the vanquished.

a stalemate against a guerilla force is not a victory.

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

so i'll answer helterdude now that he's not on my cock.

we won a stockpile of arms (that's weapons to you, helter), we spent ourselves into oblivion and created a shit ton of new enemies, etc.

if i knew more about it i could go on but that's my opinion.

I wasn't interested in you evading the question when I asked it several times, what makes you think I'm interested in you evading it now I've given up asking? Go back to pretending you were simply trolling Richard, or trying to generate 25 more posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

The pilot means very little in his combat skills when the missile that shoots down his plane, was launched 20 to 50 miles away by an aircraft he will likely never see.

In a world where unstoppable missiles travel for miles, there's no need for planes, manned or unmanned.

Quote:

You shoot down a drone and the pilot can fly again the same day.. Hell that pilot can control more than one at a time.

Of course. No big deal. We have an unlimited supply. They can be replaced in minutes at no cost.

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I wasn't interested in you evading the question when I asked it several times, what makes you think I'm interested in you evading it now I've given up asking? Go back to pretending you were simply trolling Richard, or trying to generate 25 more posts.

lighten up francis. you might think you are clever but shocker, you're typical.

MaDalton · 05-16-2013, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

oh, are you British? I thought you was American. the first operational jet fighter was the UK's Gloster Meteor.

ok - you win

but i'm not american either

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

It depends on what you consider a victory. Winning a war used to mean "unconditional surrender". Germany and Japan come to mind here. Since then, the lines are less clear.

Iraq was a victory for the US. The US took control of the government, it's military, and the entire country.

You can argue that Afghanistan - for both the US and the Russians - was a victory. In both cases the military was defeated, the government replaced, and most of the country occupied. However, in countries such as Afghanistan (and Pakistan) the government isn't in control of the entire country. In Afghanistan, no matter what government is in control there will always be multiple armed groups trying to over throw them. But did Afghanistan ever attack Russia? Nope. Did Afghanistan ever invade the US? Nope. Not a clear victory for anyone, but I wouldn't really call it a defeat for Russia or the US. At a certain point fighting a war is not viable from a political standpoint.

Zeiss · 05-16-2013, 10:39 AM

Russia > USA. Sorry to disappoint.

crockett · 05-16-2013, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

I wasn't interested in you evading the question when I asked it several times, what makes you think I'm interested in you evading it now I've given up asking? Go back to pretending you were simply trolling Richard, or trying to generate 25 more posts.

In a world where unstoppable missiles travel for miles, there's no need for planes, manned or unmanned.

Of course. No big deal. We have an unlimited supply. They can be replaced in minutes at no cost.

Long range missiles cost a lot of money and you can only carry so many on a war ship.. Aircraft and the ability to bomb are better suited for lower level targets.

The advantage of the drone vs the plane, as I mentioned.. When a drone gets shot down you aren't losing the pilot. The drone can be replaced in a short time just as the airplane can, however it takes years of training to replace that pilot.

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

lighten up francis. you might think you are clever but shocker, you're typical.

Got an answer yet?

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

In a world where unstoppable missiles travel for miles, there's no need for planes, manned or unmanned.

We will always need planes - wars are won with planes, not missiles. Air superiority is the key to everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Of course. No big deal. We have an unlimited supply. They can be replaced in minutes at no cost.

We do not have an unlimited supply of pilots. It takes years to train a pilot. Although, I would imagine in the future with unmanned planes.... They will become a lot easier to fly.

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

Got an answer yet?

oh fuck this is classic.

i'm in stitches.

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

We will always need planes - wars are won with planes, not missiles. Air superiority is the key to everything.

We do not have an unlimited supply of pilots. It takes years to train a pilot. Although, I would imagine in the future with unmanned planes.... They will become a lot easier to fly.

The years of training may explain why, in fact, hardly any pilots are killed by being shot down by enemy forces. That and the fact we never take on anything more dangerous than a bunch of peasants in pajamas armed with AK47s.

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

oh fuck this is classic.

i'm in stitches.

Post a few more "

", some people might not be convinced.

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 11:06 AM

ok. 1 more for you, but only since you haven't figured it out yet.

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 11:08 AM

Figured what out? Why you're calling me "francis"? You're right. But it's funny.

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

We do not have an unlimited supply of pilots. It takes years to train a pilot. Although, I would imagine in the future with unmanned planes.... They will become a lot easier to fly.

i saw that unmanned/piloted flight btw.. very cool

think the benefit of remote/computer is the maneuvers that can be done.. only limits to planes atm are the pilots.. no pilots, a lot less limits

question is why it took so long to switch?

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 11:15 AM

dehumanising war will turn out to be a very bad thing.

Quote:

This is a halfway stage between old and new wars ? such as happened in Vietnam and now in Iraq and Afghanistan ? where an invading army finds itself at a loss as to how to fight what is essentially a guerrilla war fought by people trying to rid their country of a force that has come in from outside and is trying to impose its own solution on their state?s difficulties. But when, politicians having realised they are never going to ?win? this war, the invading troops are pulled out

Quote:

Killing at a distance dehumanises those doing it ? it is not killing but a computer game. Scoring a ?hit? that involves no blood, no entrails, no broken lives brings no guilt, no remorse and no proper awareness of the hurt inflicted on others. But with the physical damage being inflicted on Western forces (in the US Army alone 73,674 soldiers have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and 30,480 soldiers have returned from combat with traumatic brain injury), this, in itself, is a good enough reason to use nothing but drones, and if both sides use them then the only casualties will be absolutely guaranteed to be civilian. It is bad enough that the US thinks it is fighting a global war on terror, so all the world is a battlefield. What price the world if another state takes that attitude thinking, quite rightly, that the US drones are a form of terrorism?

Using drones also dehumanises the people they kill. These are not fellow humans but terrorists, not civilians but collateral damage, not 8-year-old boys or old men of eighty but potential combatants. The enemy becomes nothing more than a fly to be swatted, a worm to be stepped on. President Obama has to personally authorise US drone strikes, more than 300 of them in his first four years of office.

Quote:

But if armies become mere operators of drones, or the ?super soldier?, guilt-free and heartless, becomes reality, then there really is no end to war. For the publics? reaction to damaged soldiers coming back home and being a drain on families? emotions and the public purse because of PTSD or multiple disablements will be the only thing that just might finally persuade the politicians that war is not worth the fighting.

http://current.com/1kf8okc

dyna mo · 05-16-2013, 11:27 AM

6 Technologies for Dehumanising War

Aerial Drones: Surveillance drones and weaponized drones have taken center stage, bringing death from above via remote control, often from thousands of miles away. The video game culture surely has lent a hand in creating the disconnect from buttons pushed and real lives lost. The latest offering are backpack-sized suicide drones that can fly autonomously, or via remote control.

Robots and Unmanned Ground Vehicles: Human troops on the ground already have partnered with thousands of robots to secure roadside bombs, conduct surveillance missions, and serve as battle-ready auxiliaries or autonomous agents. Unmanned tank turrets have been introduced to strafe the enemy, as well as an assortment of vehicles and even navy vessels to patrol the seas without on-board operators.

Cargo delivery: Lockheed Martin has just announced a resounding success with their K-MAX system of ?autonomous and remote control? helicopters that can re-supply troops. This cargo delivery system could potentially merge with robotic forces on the ground, completely eliminating the need for humans on either end.

Nanotech: The miniaturization of drones seems to have no end. Literal swarms of cyborg insects can surveil the most impenetrable locations. With President Obama?s 2011 Nanotechnology Initiative (pdf) having been fully funded, this has been signed on as the future of non-human war. DARPA has tested nano-enhanced hybrids for body and vehicle armor, paving the way for the likelihood of full-fledged human augmentation to merge nature and machine.

Cyborgs: Modern science has merged with the unending military budget to make the cyborgs of science fiction a near-term reality. Insect cyborgs are well-established as a recognizance tool, while Bullet-proof skin will augment any humans that might be left on the battlefield. Human augmentation has reached a new level with the XOS exo-skeleton that creates a real-world Iron Man with superhuman strength and abilities. Augmented Cognition Technology programs have been spearheaded by defense contracting giant Honeywell, which offers a full-spectrum computer-body interface to analyze and potentially program soldiers? physical and mental states via computer.

Computers and Cyberwar: The merging of the virtual landscape with the real is where humans could become redundant. The Department of Defense and Homeland Security have made it clear that cyber terrorism is the next great threat. Furthermore, they have announced that the cyber battlefield will be a representation of the real one, with computer attacks prompting real-world response. This could be the last step of full integration, as computers and communications networks connect in one overall web of attack and response ? with humanity left only to wonder how things could have spiraled so far out of control. Are we facing future wars conducted only between drones? How long before their autonomous capabilities go too far?

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

think the benefit of remote/computer is the maneuvers that can be done.. only limits to planes atm are the pilots.. no pilots, a lot less limits

The benefit is you don't have a pilot who may have issues about bombing a school. A problem you don't have when someone like Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld has his finger on the button in a Pentagon control room.

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

The benefit is you don't have a pilot who may have issues about bombing a school. A problem you don't have when someone like Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld has his finger on the button in a Pentagon control room.

doesn't seem to be much of a problem

however it was interesting reading about how many canadian 'non completed sorties', cause, from what i interpreted, pilots were refusing to fire

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

The years of training may explain why, in fact, hardly any pilots are killed by being shot down by enemy forces. That and the fact we never take on anything more dangerous than a bunch of peasants in pajamas armed with AK47s.

While I'm not knocking the skill of pilots of any nation... The only way to take down an aircraft is either by air to air missile or ground to air missile. Take out the command and control and the defender cannot use either.

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

The benefit is you don't have a pilot who may have issues about bombing a school. A problem you don't have when someone like Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld has his finger on the button in a Pentagon control room.

You have that backwards. We have issues with dropping bombs on schools, etc, while the other side intentionally uses them to hide in.

Rochard · 05-16-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i saw that unmanned/piloted flight btw.. very cool

think the benefit of remote/computer is the maneuvers that can be done.. only limits to planes atm are the pilots.. no pilots, a lot less limits

question is why it took so long to switch?

The technology being applied to warfare today is beyond frightening.

We will get to a point where one man will issue a command, and thousands of unmanned fighters and bombers automatically lift off, travel half way around the world, seek out targets, attack, return and refuel, and continue to patrol a country's airspace for months until all targets are destroyed....

That's some scary shit - and we might just see it in our lifetime.

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

btw - fun fact - Russia still owes the US a couple of billion USD for tanks, guns etc. that the US sent them in support of the war against Hitler. After the war the whole equipment was destroyed and Stalin forbid to ever speak about it again.

Do you mean "lend lease"? I have no idea what Stalin did, but I was learning about it when I was a soviet schoolboy. And yes, the USA don't just simple "helped" Russia with the weapon etc. They just did their business on that war and supplied everything in exchange for gold.

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rogueteens

If Germany had just the one front to worry about don't you think they would have made it to the Russian oilfields before they were stopped by the Russian weather?

When exactly the second front was opened? Where the Soviet army was at that times?

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The technology being applied to warfare today is beyond frightening.

We will get to a point where one man will issue a command, and thousands of unmanned fighters and bombers automatically lift off, travel half way around the world, seek out targets, attack, return and refuel, and continue to patrol a country's airspace for months until all targets are destroyed....

That's some scary shit - and we might just see it in our lifetime.

yea i am inclined to agree.

and with this development:

http://www.longislandpress.com/2013/...s-into-effect/

yes. scary shit.

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I am not a "US Patriot".

You are, and a very brainwashed ones if you consider the successful manned Moon landing as winning of the whole space race.

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dvae

You missed one. First living creature in space. Too bad she died with your little experiment. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2367681.stm

Not mine (I wasn't even born at that times). However it's better to kill a dog (actually I love dogs a lot because they our best friends) rather to fry a whole shuttle crew (or even two of 'em)

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Not mine (I wasn't even born at that times). However it's better to kill a dog (actually I love dogs a lot because they our best friends) rather to fry a whole shuttle crew (or even two of 'em)

isn't that what happened every time the russians tried to get people through the belt?

not much of a tease..

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

isn't that what happened every time the russians tried to get people through the belt?

Didn't get it. Sorry.

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Didn't get it. Sorry.

'or even two of em'

that was a dig at blown up shuttles yes?

Russians, trying to get astronauts through the van allen belt, fried at least 3 crews

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

Russians, trying to get astronauts through the van allen belt, fried at least

Really? Any sources?

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Really? Any sources?

sure, lets play

the first person who comes up with a government issued detailed report on failure outta the USSR wins

you go first.

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

doesn't seem to be much of a problem

however it was interesting reading about how many canadian 'non completed sorties', cause, from what i interpreted, pilots were refusing to fire

There's a documentary called 'The Truth About Killing' (actually it's on Youtube, I may watch it again) which is about how, in the wake of the Vietnam war, the US military (successfully) attempted to stamp out soldiers' normal, innate aversion to killing other people.

Apparently in the Vietnam war, WWII and other prior wars, something like 90% (or some equally surprising number) of soldiers either didn't shoot or deliberately missed the enemy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You have that backwards. We have issues with dropping bombs on schools, etc, while the other side intentionally uses them to hide in.

Whereas we bravely stay in subs and drone operations rooms thousand of miles away.

Out of curiosity, where would you stand if you were resisting a powerful enemy that invaded the US? The middle of a parking lot?

helterskelter808 · 05-16-2013, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The technology being applied to warfare today is beyond frightening.

We will get to a point where one man will issue a command, and thousands of unmanned fighters and bombers automatically lift off, travel half way around the world, seek out targets, attack, return and refuel, and continue to patrol a country's airspace for months until all targets are destroyed....

That's some scary shit - and we might just see it in our lifetime.

And it becomes self-aware 2:14 am Eastern time, August 29th.

Not sure which year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

When exactly the second front was opened? Where the Soviet army was at that times?

Probably murdering officers at Katyn, Poland, which you invaded with your Nazi allies.

just a punk · 05-16-2013, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

sure, lets play

the first person who comes up with a government issued detailed report on failure outta the USSR wins

you go first.

Whaaaat???

_Richard_ · 05-16-2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by helterskelter808

There's a documentary called 'The Truth About Killing' (actually it's on Youtube, I may watch it again) which is about how, in the wake of the Vietnam war, the US military (successfully) attempted to stamp out soldiers' normal, innate aversion to killing other people.

Apparently in the Vietnam war, WWII and other prior wars, something like 90% (or some equally surprising number) of soldiers either didn't shoot or deliberately missed the enemy.

yea i was reading about that.. came across this:

http://www.historynet.com/men-agains...ietnam-war.htm

which talks about that entire theory and its source.. still, the 'after interviews' of this article writer still claims that 20% don't fire

05-16-2013, 10:39 AM	#120
Zeiss Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2012 Location: With your mom Posts: 5,189	Russia > USA. Sorry to disappoint. __________________ Adult Webmasters Guides

05-16-2013, 09:52 AM	#114
wizzart scriptmaster Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: Serbia Posts: 5,237	Yes Russian army is good as the US army, only in propaganda they are several years behind.

05-16-2013, 09:55 AM	#115
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,857	rochard and i will have to disagree on the outcome of afghanistan but we do agree that in war there are the victors and the vanquished. a stalemate against a guerilla force is not a victory.

05-16-2013, 11:06 AM	#127
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,857	ok. 1 more for you, but only since you haven't figured it out yet.

05-16-2013, 11:08 AM	#128
helterskelter808 So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 3,405	Figured what out? Why you're calling me "francis"? You're right. But it's funny.

05-16-2013, 11:27 AM	#131
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,857	6 Technologies for Dehumanising War Aerial Drones: Surveillance drones and weaponized drones have taken center stage, bringing death from above via remote control, often from thousands of miles away. The video game culture surely has lent a hand in creating the disconnect from buttons pushed and real lives lost. The latest offering are backpack-sized suicide drones that can fly autonomously, or via remote control. Robots and Unmanned Ground Vehicles: Human troops on the ground already have partnered with thousands of robots to secure roadside bombs, conduct surveillance missions, and serve as battle-ready auxiliaries or autonomous agents. Unmanned tank turrets have been introduced to strafe the enemy, as well as an assortment of vehicles and even navy vessels to patrol the seas without on-board operators. Cargo delivery: Lockheed Martin has just announced a resounding success with their K-MAX system of ?autonomous and remote control? helicopters that can re-supply troops. This cargo delivery system could potentially merge with robotic forces on the ground, completely eliminating the need for humans on either end. Nanotech: The miniaturization of drones seems to have no end. Literal swarms of cyborg insects can surveil the most impenetrable locations. With President Obama?s 2011 Nanotechnology Initiative (pdf) having been fully funded, this has been signed on as the future of non-human war. DARPA has tested nano-enhanced hybrids for body and vehicle armor, paving the way for the likelihood of full-fledged human augmentation to merge nature and machine. Cyborgs: Modern science has merged with the unending military budget to make the cyborgs of science fiction a near-term reality. Insect cyborgs are well-established as a recognizance tool, while Bullet-proof skin will augment any humans that might be left on the battlefield. Human augmentation has reached a new level with the XOS exo-skeleton that creates a real-world Iron Man with superhuman strength and abilities. Augmented Cognition Technology programs have been spearheaded by defense contracting giant Honeywell, which offers a full-spectrum computer-body interface to analyze and potentially program soldiers? physical and mental states via computer. Computers and Cyberwar: The merging of the virtual landscape with the real is where humans could become redundant. The Department of Defense and Homeland Security have made it clear that cyber terrorism is the next great threat. Furthermore, they have announced that the cyber battlefield will be a representation of the real one, with computer attacks prompting real-world response. This could be the last step of full integration, as computers and communications networks connect in one overall web of attack and response ? with humanity left only to wonder how things could have spiraled so far out of control. Are we facing future wars conducted only between drones? How long before their autonomous capabilities go too far?